Iron pyrite thin films from molecular inks

ABSTRACT

Systems and methods are provided for fabricating pyrite thin films from molecular inks. A process is provided that comprises dissolving simple iron-bearing and sulfur-bearing molecules in an appropriate solvent and then depositing the solution onto an appropriate substrate using one of several methods (roll-to-roll coating, spraying, spin coating, etc.), resulting in a solid film consisting of the molecules. These molecular precursor films are then heated to 200-600° C. in the presence of sulfur-bearing gases (e.g., S 2 , H 2 S) to convert the molecular films into films of crystalline iron pyrite (FeS 2 ).

CROSS-REFERENCE TO RELATED APPLICATIONS

The present application is a continuation of U.S. patent applicationSer. No. 13/799,448, filed Mar. 13, 2013, now U.S. Pat. No. 9,048,375,which claims the benefit of and priority to U.S. Provisional ApplicationNo. 61/754,461 titled “IRON PYRITE THIN FILMS FROM MOLECULAR INKS,”filed on Jan. 18, 2013, which are hereby incorporated by reference intheir entirety.

STATEMENT REGARDING FEDERALLY SPONSORED RESEARCH OR DEVELOPMENT

This invention was made with Government support under Grant No.CHE-1035218, awarded by the National Science Foundation. The Governmenthas certain rights in this invention.

FIELD

The embodiments relate generally to solar cells and iron pyrite thinfilm solar cell devices, and more particularly to methods for generatingiron pyrite thin films from molecular inks.

BACKGROUND

The current annual global energy demand of ˜14 terawatt-years (TW-yrs)is expected to double by mid-century and triple by the end of thecentury. Such a large increase in energy demand cannot be met by theexisting carbon-based technologies without further destabilizing theclimate. The sun is the largest source of carbon-free energy (120,000TW-yrs strike the earth's surface annually) and can be used to produceboth electricity and fuel. Yet in the United States, solar electricity(e.g. photovoltaics) and solar-derived fuels (e.g. biomass) currentlyprovide about 1 millionth of the total electricity supply and less than0.1% of total energy consumption, respectively.

An area of great promise for low-cost solar energy conversion isinorganic thin-film photovoltaics (PV). Thin-film PV has the potentialto revolutionize the photovoltaics industry via cheaper processing andeliminating the use of expensive silicon wafers that account for over50% of total manufacturing cost of traditional silicon-based PV. Currentthin-film technology is based on amorphous silicon, CdTe, and CIGS(copper indium gallium diselenide) as the active absorber layers. Thesematerials can be made 50-100 times thinner than traditional siliconcells because of their larger optical absorption coefficients. Theresulting lower cost per peak watt ($/Wp) is driving the extraordinarymarket growth of thin-film PV, which is projected to account for 28% ofthe solar market by 2012 (at $19.7 billion in sales). CdTe and CIGS arecurrently the most favored of the thin-film technologies due to theirhigh laboratory cell efficiencies (16.5% for CdTe and 19.9% for CIGS)and because amorphous silicon encounters certain stability problems.However, the future market share and societal impact of CdTe and CIGS PVwill be limited by the scarcity of tellurium (Te) and indium (I) in theEarth's crust. Most projections conclude that price constraints ontellurium and indium will limit CdTe and CIGS to 0.3 TWs or less oftotal solar conversion capacity, which falls far short of the tens ofterawatts of carbon-free energy that are needed to meet the globalenergy challenge. To enable the rapid expansion of PV to the multi-TWscale, it is essential to develop alternative thin-film PV materialsbased on common (rock-forming) elements and inexpensive manufacturingprocesses.

Iron pyrite (cubic FeS₂) is experiencing renewed interest as anearth-abundant, nontoxic absorber layer for scalable thin-filmphotovoltaics (PV). Pyrite has an appropriate band gap (E_(g)=0.95 eV),very strong light absorption (α>105 cm for hv>1.3-1.4 eV), andsufficiently long carrier drift and diffusion lengths to produce largeshort-circuit photocurrent densities (>30 rnA cm-2) inphotoelectrochemical and solid state Schottky solar cells based onpyrite single crystals. The main limitation with pyrite is the lowopen-circuit voltage (V_(OC)) of pyrite devices, which does not normallyexceed 200 mV, or ˜20% of the band gap. Efforts to correct this lowV_(OC) require basic studies of high-quality bulk and thin film pyritesamples.

Pyrite thin films have been fabricated by a variety of solution-phaseand gas-phase methods. Solution methods that leverageatmospheric-pressure, high-throughput, large-area processing techniqueslike printing, roll coating, slit casting, or spraying may offer costand scalability advantages relative to the vacuum-based batch processingtraditionally employed in PV manufacturing. Solution methods used tomake pyrite thin films include spray pyrolysis, chemical bath deposition(CBD), electrophoretic deposition (EPD), and sol gel chemistry. Thestrategy adopted in most of these cases is to deposit a film of (oftenamorphous) iron oxides or iron sulfides and anneal the fi m in sulfurgas at elevated temperatures (350-600° C.) to produce polycrystallinepyrite.

Table 1 compiles the principal reports of solution-deposited pyritefilms, listing only those examples that provide substantive optical orelectrical characterization of nominally phase-pure samples. Althoughmany of these reports are partial and some present electrical data thatis difficult to reconcile with results from other films and pyritesingle crystals, most conclude that unintentionally-doped,solution-deposited pyrite films are p-type with low resistivity and lowmobility, in agreement with results from samples grown by gas-phasemethods. Recently, pyrite films have also been made by the solutiondeposition of pyrite nanocrystals, either with or withoutpost-deposition sintering to increase grain size and film density, butthe electrical properties of these films have not been reported indetail (see Table 1).

TABLE 1 Synthesis and Properties of Solution-Deposited Pyrite Thin FilmsMethod Precursers Conditions Reported Properties Ref spray pyro aq.FeCl₃, 550° C. in air (?), E_(g) = 1.05 eV 6 thiourea no anneal (?)spray pyro aq. FeCl₃, 350° C. in N₂ + S, E_(g) = 0.82 eV, p-type,^(a) 7thiourea no anneal low mobility, p = 0.16 Ω cm spray pyro aq. FeSO₄,120° C. in air, p-type,^(b) p = 10¹⁶-10²⁰ cm⁻³, 9 (NH₄)₂S 500° C. annealin S μ = 1-200 cm² V⁻¹ s⁻¹ (?) spray pyro aq. FeCl₃ 350° C. in air,E_(g) = 0.73 eV, p = 0.6 Ω cm, 10 450° C. anneal in S non-Arrhenius Tdependence spray pyro aq. FeCl₃ 350° C. in air, E_(g) = 0.93 eV,p-type^(a) 8 350° C. anneal in S electrodep aq. Na₂S₂O₃, 60° C., n-type(due to Ti doping?)^(a) 13 (NH₄)₂Fe(SO₄)₂ 500° C. anneal in S electrodepaq. FeCl₂, 25° C., E_(g) = 1.34 eV, p-type,^(b) 12 Na₂S₂O₃ 500° C.anneal in S p = 10¹⁴ cm⁻³, μ~200 (?) CBD Fe(CO)₅, S 80-165° C. in argon,photoactive 17 in org. solv. no anneal CBD aq. FeSO₄, en, 28° C., E_(g)= 0.94 eV, n-type (?) 18 Na₂S₂O₃ 450° C. anneal in S EPD aq. FeCl₃, 200°C., no anneal E_(g) = 1.19-1.40 eV, 19 thiourea n-type (?) sol gel aq.Fe(NO₃)₃ 25° C., 500° C. anneal E_(g) = 0.99 eV, p-type,^(b) 20 in air +400° C. in S p = 10¹⁹ cm⁻³, μ = 1.5 sol gel Fe(NO₃)₃, PO 25° C., 100° C.anneal E_(g) = 0.93 eV 22 in EtOH in air + 450° C. in S sol gelFe(NO₃)₃, 40° C., E_(g) = 0.77-0.87 eV, 21 acac in EG 500° C. anneal inair n-type w/low T anneal, 400-600° C. in S p-type w/high T anneal^(b)NC FeCl₂, TOPO 220° C. in argon, E_(g) = 0.93 eV, p-type,^(b) 25oleylamine dip coating μ = 80 cm² V⁻¹ s⁻¹ (?) molecular Fe(acac)₃ + S25° C., 320° C. anneal E_(g) = 0.87 eV, p-type,^(a) this ink in pyridinein air, 390° C. in H₂S + low mobility, p = 1.9 Ω cm work 550° C. in Sspray pyro = spray pyrolysis; electrodep = electrodeposition; CBD =chemical bath deposition; EPD = electrophoretic deposition; NC =nanocrystal deposition. DEG = diethylene glycol; en = ethylenediamine;PO = propylene oxide; EG = ethylene glycol; acac = acetylacetone; TOPO =trioctylphosphine oxide. (?) = incomplete or questionable data orconclusions. a = by thermopower; b = by Hall effect.

Therefore, high-quality bulk and thin film pyrite and processes togenerate the same are desirable.

SUMMARY

A process is provided that comprises dissolving simple iron-bearing andsulfur-bearing molecules in an appropriate solvent and then depositingthe solution onto an appropriate substrate using one of several methods(roll-to-roll coating, spraying, spin coating, etc.), resulting in asolid film consisting of the molecules. These molecular precursor filmsare then heated to 200-600° C. in the presence of sulfur-bearing gases(e.g., S₂, H₂S) to convert the molecular films into films of crystallineiron pyrite (FeS₂).

The systems, methods, features and advantages of the invention will beor will become apparent to one with skill in the art upon examination ofthe following figures and detailed description. It is intended that allsuch additional methods, features and advantages be included within thisdescription, be within the scope of the invention, and be protected bythe accompanying claims. It is also intended that the invention is notlimited to require the details of the example embodiments.

BRIEF DESCRIPTION

The accompanying drawings, which are included as part of the presentspecification, illustrate the presently preferred embodiment and,together with the general description given above and the detaileddescription of the preferred embodiment given below, serve to explainand teach the principles of the present invention.

FIG. 1A illustrates X-ray diffraction pattern of a pyrite thin filmproduced via the DMSO/ethanolamine molecular precursor route.

FIG. 1B illustrates a scanning electron microscope image of a pyritethin film produced via the DMSO/ethanolamine molecular precursor route.

FIG. 2A illustrates X-ray diffraction pattern of a pyrite thin filmproduced via the pyridine route with iron (III) acetylacetonate.

FIG. 2B illustrates a scanning electron microscope image of a pyritethin film produced via the pyridine route with iron (III)acetylacetonate.

FIG. 3A illustrates an exemplary processing sequence for use with thepresent system, according to one embodiment.

FIG. 3B illustrates a mid-IR spectra following each step of the processshown in FIG. 3A.

FIG. 3C illustrates a far-IR spectra following each step of the processshown in FIG. 3A.

FIG. 4A illustrates SEM images for a 270±30 nm thick film on quartzbefore sulfur annealing.

FIG. 4B illustrates SEM images for a 270±30 nm thick film on quartzafter sulfur annealing.

FIG. 4C illustrates XRD data for a 270±30 nm thick film on quartz beforeand after sulfur annealing.

FIG. 5A illustrates SEM images for a typical 270±30 nm thick FeS₂ filmon a Mo-coated glass substrate before sulfur annealing.

FIG. 5B illustrates SEM images for a typical 270±30 nm thick FeS₂ filmon a Mo-coated glass substrate after sulfur annealing.

FIG. 5C illustrates SEM and XRD data for a typical 270±30 nm thick FeS₂film on a Mo-coated glass substrate.

FIG. 6A illustrates Raman spectra of FeS₂ films on Mo-coated glass.

FIG. 6B illustrates Raman spectra of FeS₂ films on quartz substrates.

FIG. 6C illustrates synchrotron XRD data of FeS₂ films.

FIG. 7A illustrates AES depth profile for a 300±30 nm thick pyrite filmon Mo-coated glass.

FIG. 7B illustrates SIMS depth profile for a 300±30 nm thick pyrite filmon Mo-coated glass.

FIG. 7C illustrates SIMS depth profile for a 300±30 nm thick pyrite filmon a Mo-coated silicon substrate.

FIG. 8A illustrates exemplary surface composition of sulfur-annealedpyrite films by XPS showing the S 2p spectra.

FIG. 8B illustrates exemplary surface composition of sulfur-annealedpyrite films by XPS showing the Fe 2p spectra.

FIG. 8C illustrates exemplary surface composition of sulfur-annealedpyrite films by XPS showing the O 1s spectra.

FIG. 8D illustrates exemplary surface composition of sulfur-annealedpyrite films by XPS showing the C 1s spectra.

FIG. 8E illustrates exemplary surface composition of sulfur-annealedpyrite films by XPS showing the Na 1s spectra.

FIG. 9A illustrates XP spectra of a sulfur-annealed pyrite film on aMo-coated glass substrate freshly prepared.

FIG. 9B illustrates XP spectra of a sulfur-annealed pyrite film on aMo-coated glass substrate exposed to air for 10 hours.

FIG. 9C illustrates XP spectra of a sulfur-annealed pyrite film on aMo-coated glass substrate rinsed and deionized in water for 10 seconds.

FIG. 10A illustrates optical properties to determine the absorptioncoefficient of exemplary pyrite films.

FIG. 10B illustrates optical properties to determine the optical bandgap of exemplary pyrite films.

FIG. 10C illustrates Raman spectra of exemplary pyrite films

FIG. 11A illustrates exemplary marcasite optical properties using XRDpattern analysis.

FIG. 11B illustrates exemplary marcasite optical properties using Ramandata.

FIG. 11C illustrates exemplary marcasite optical properties to showdifferences in absorptivity spectra.

FIG. 11D illustrates exemplary marcasite optical properties to showdifferences in estimated optical band gap.

FIG. 12 illustrates exemplary electrical resistivity of pyrite andmixed-phase FeS₂ films.

FIG. 13A illustrates UV-Vis spectra of exemplary Fe(acac)₃ ink accordingto one embodiment.

FIG. 13B illustrates UV-Vis spectra of exemplary Fe(acac)₃ filmsaccording to one embodiment.

FIG. 14A illustrates ultraslow conventional XRD scan of a sulfurannealed pyrite film on a quartz substrate.

FIG. 14B illustrates ultraslow conventional XRD scan of a sulfurannealed pyrite film on a quartz substrate.

FIG. 14C illustrates ultraslow conventional XRD scan of a sulfurannealed pyrite film on a quartz substrate.

FIG. 15A illustrates SEM data for a Mo-coated glass substrate.

FIG. 15B illustrates XRD data for a Mo-coated glass substrate

FIG. 16A illustrates exemplary characterization of a Mo-coated glasssubstrate providing SEM images showing an as received substrate.

FIG. 16B illustrates exemplary characterization of a Mo-coated glasssubstrate providing SEM images showing an argon-annealed substrate.

FIG. 16C illustrates exemplary characterization of a Mo-coated glasssubstrate providing SEM images showing a sulfur-annealed substrate.

FIG. 16D illustrates exemplary characterization of a Mo-coated glasssubstrate providing XRD patterns of an as received substrate and asulfur-annealed substrate.

FIG. 17A illustrates ultraslow conventional XRD scan of asulfur-annealed pyrite film on a Mo-coated glass substrate. FIG. 17Billustrates ultraslow conventional XRD scan of a sulfur-annealed pyritefilm on a Mo-coated glass substrate. FIG. 17C illustrates ultraslowconventional XRD scan of a sulfur-annealed pyrite film on a Mo-coatedglass substrate.

FIG. 18A illustrates the bulk unit cell of marcasite.

FIG. 18B illustrates the density states of marcasite

FIG. 19A illustrates the band structure of marcasite.

FIG. 19B illustrates the dielectric functions of marcasite.

FIG. 20 illustrates the calculated absorption coefficient of marcasiteand pyrite.

FIG. 21A illustrates Arrhenius plots with hopping fits of resistivityfor FeS₂ films made by Fe(acac)₃ ink, CVD, and reactive sputtering.

FIG. 21B illustrates Arrhenius plots with Werner fits of resistivity forFeS₂ films made by Fe(acac)₃ ink, CVD, and reactive sputtering

It should be noted that the figures are not necessarily drawn to scaleand that elements of similar structures or functions are generallyrepresented by like reference numerals for illustrative purposesthroughout the figures. It also should be noted that the figures areonly intended to facilitate the description of the various embodimentsdescribed herein. The figures do not necessarily describe every aspectof the teachings disclosed herein and do not limit the scope of theclaims.

DETAILED DESCRIPTION

The embodiments provided herein are directed to systems and methods forfabricating pyrite thin films from molecular inks. A process is providedthat comprises dissolving simple iron-bearing and sulfur-bearingmolecules in an appropriate solvent and then depositing the solutiononto an appropriate substrate using one of several methods (roll-to-rollcoating, spraying, spin coating, etc.), resulting in a solid filmconsisting of the molecules. These molecular precursor films are thenheated to 200-600° C. in the presence of sulfur-bearing gases (e.g., S₂,H₂S) to convert the molecular films into films of crystalline ironpyrite (FeS₂). This approach offers the following advantages compared togas-phase deposition and other solution-phase approaches:

-   -   Simple and rapid deposition over large areas.    -   Excellent control of film composition.    -   Superior film uniformity.    -   Simple doping and alloying.    -   Low toxicity.    -   Fairly low temperature.

Several solution chemistries to make polycrystalline pyrite thin filmshave been developed. One solution is a DMSO/ethanolamine route. Sulfurand iron powders are added in a certain ratio to one part ethanolaminein 6.5 parts dimethyl sulfoxide (DMSO) and stirred for 24 hours at roomtemperature. This solution is then deposited by spin coating using spinconditions that yield ˜150 nm thick layers for each coating cycle. Aftereach spin coating cycle, the film is heated on a hot plate at 200° C.for 5 minutes and allowed to cool. Additional layers are spin coated asdesired to achieve the desired film thickness. The film is then annealedat 400-600° C. for several hours to convert the molecular species tocrystalline iron pyrite. FIG. 1A illustrates X-ray diffraction patternof a pyrite thin film produced via the DMSO/ethanolamine molecularprecursor route. FIG. 1B illustrates a scanning electron microscopeimage of a pyrite thin film produced via the DMSO/ethanolamine molecularprecursor route.

Another solution is a pyridine route. Sulfur and iron (III)acetylacetonate are added in a certain ratio to pure pyridine. Thissolution is spin coated onto various substrates to make ˜200 nm thicksolid layers. This film is then pre-baked on a hot-plate at 350° C. for20-30 minutes prior to being annealed in a sulfur atmosphere at 550° C.This final step converts the molecular film into a pure polycrystallineiron pyrite film coating the entire surface. FIG. 2A illustrates X-raydiffraction pattern of a pyrite thin film produced via the pyridineroute with iron (III) acetylacetonate.

FIG. 2B illustrates a scanning electron microscope image of a pyritethin film produced via the pyridine route with iron (III)acetylacetonate.

Iron pyrite (cubic FeS₂) is a promising candidate absorber material forearth-abundant thin-film solar cells. The present disclosure relates tophase-pure, large-grain, and uniform polycrystalline pyrite films thatare fabricated by solution-phase deposition of an iron(III)acetylacetonate molecular ink followed by sequential annealing in air,H2S, and sulfur gas at temperatures up to 550° C. Phase and elementalcomposition of the films is characterized by conventional andsynchrotron X-ray diffraction (XRD), Raman spectroscopy, Auger electronspectroscopy, secondary ion mass spectrometry (SIMS), and X-rayphotoelectron spectroscopy (XPS). These solution-deposited films havemore oxygen and alkalis, less carbon and hydrogen, and smaller opticalband gaps (E_(g)=0.87±0.05 eV) than similar films made by chemical vapordeposition. XPS is used to assess the chemical composition of the filmsurface before and after exposure to air and immersion in water toremove surface contaminants. Optical measurements of films rich inmarcasite (orthorhombic FeS₂) show that marcasite has a band gap atleast as large as pyrite and that the two polymorphs share similarabsorptivity spectra, in excellent agreement with density functionaltheory (DFT) models. Regardless of the marcasite and elemental impuritycontent, all films show p-type, weakly-activated transport with curvedArrhenius plots, room-temperature resistivity of ˜1 Q cm, and a holemobility that is too small to measure by Hall effect. This universalelectrical behavior strongly suggests that a single bulk or surfaceeffect dominates charge transport in FeS₂ thin films.

Molecular inks are an especially promising solution-phase approach forfabricating high-performance semiconductor thin films for PVs. Amolecular ink is a viscous solution of molecular precursors that is castonto a substrate and annealed to form a film of a desired material.Pioneered by Mitzi for the synthesis of metal chalcogenides, molecularinks offer many advantages, including (i) simple and scalableprocessing; (ii) intermixing of precursors on a molecular level,resulting in uniform composition and excellent crystallinity in thefinished film; (iii) good control of stoichiometry via ink composition;(iv) low concentrations of elemental impurities (e.g., oxygen, carbon,halides) for well-formulated, organic-free inks, such as those utilizinghydrazine (N2H4) as a solvent; (v) straightforward doping and alloyingby spiking inks with desired elements; (vi) no need to synthesize,purify, assemble, and passivate nanocrystals. Hydrazine-based molecularinks have been used to fabricate CuIn(Se,S)₂ (CISSe),CuIn_(1-x)Ga_(x)Se₂ (CIGS), and Cu₂ZnSnS₄ (CZTS) solar cells withefficiencies as high as 12.2%, 12.8%, and 11.1%, respectively,demonstrating the promise of this approach for PV applications.

The present disclosure includes discussion of the structural, optical,and electrical properties of pyrite thin films prepared from a molecularink composed of Fe(acac)₃ (acac=acetylacetonate) and elemental sulfur inpyridine. This viscous, air-stable ink is spin coated onto a substrate,oxidized to form a film of iron oxides and iron salts, and thensulfurized to convert the oxides/salts to pyrite. Metal acetylacetonateinks have previously been used to make CuInS₂ films by roll coating.

According to one embodiment, an exemplary Fe(acac)₃ ink avoids the useof toxic and explosive hydrazine at the cost of relatively high levelsof oxygen (1750-8800 ppm) and some carbon (500-1000 ppm) in the finalfilms. The sulfur-annealed films are pure-phase pyrite to within thedetection limit of synchrotron XRD and Raman spectroscopy. Films grownon molybdenum-coated glass substrates consist of densely-packed columnargrains and are uniform in thickness (±5%), fairly smooth (RMS roughnesson the order of 10% of the film thickness), free of cracks and pinholes,and mechanically adherent and robust. Films grown on fused quartzsubstrates show optical band gaps of ˜0.87 eV and a maximum absorptioncoefficient of approximately 4×10 cm⁻¹. The electrical properties ofthese films (Table 1 above) are effectively identical to nearly allother unintentionally doped pyrite films. The universal electricalbehavior of pyrite films is most likely caused by a conductive,hole-rich surface layer or trace amounts of nanoscale phase impuritiesundetectable by XRD and other bulk analytical techniques.

According to an exemplary implementation of one embodiment of thepresent disclosure, iron(III) acetylacetonate (≧99.9%) and anhydrouspyridine were purchased from Aldrich, sulfur (99.995%) from Alfa Aesar,and hydrogen sulfide (99.3%) from Airgas. Electronic grade acetone(Aldrich) and HPLC grade isopropanol (Fisher) were used for cleaningsubstrates. All chemicals were used as received. A spin coating ink wasprepared by dissolving 0.7 g of Fe(III) acetylacetonate (2 mmol) and 0.1g of elemental sulfur (3.1 mmol) in 2 mL of pyridine and sonicating themixture at 50° C. for 6 hours. Molybdenum-coated glass substrates wereused as received, while fused quartz substrates were cleaned bysonication in acetone and isopropanol. Ink films were made by spincoating 175 μL of the solution onto clean 1 in² substrates (2000 rpm for60 s) in a N₂-filled glove box. The ink layer was then placed on a coldhot plate and heated in air to 320° C. (for 1 mm thick substrates) or370° C. (for 3 mm thick substrates) over the course of 10 minutes, afterwhich it was immediately moved to the edge of the hot plate to cool for5-10 seconds and placed in a cool petri dish. Two additional depositionand baking steps were used to produce films with a target pyritethickness of ˜300 nm. The ink films were then annealed in 1 atm offlowing H₂S gas (390° C. for 12 hours) to yield mixed-phasepyrite/marcasite thin films (“H₂S annealed” films). The marcasiteimpurity was eliminated by annealing the films in evacuated 125×14 mmquartz ampoules containing 100 mg of elemental sulfur and 100 mTorr ofargon (550° C. for 8 hours).

Molybdenum-coated glass substrates were supplied by a proprietarycommercial manufacturer. Molybdenum-coated silicon substrates were madeby in-house RF sputtering (99.95% Mo target, 5×10⁻⁶ Torr base pressure,10 mTorr argon deposition pressure) onto undoped float zone siliconwafers.

For characterization of the exemplary implementation, powder X-raydiffraction data were collected with a Rigaku Ultima III diffractometerusing Cu Kα radiation and a 1° incidence angle in parallel beamgeometry. Quantitative phase concentrations were established bysimulating powder patterns with the PDXL software package (RigakuCorporation) using the Rietveld refinement procedure. High-resolutionsynchrotron XRD was carried out on beamline II-BM of the Advanced PhotonSource at Argonne National Laboratory. Scanning electron microscopy(SEM) imaging employed an FEI Quanta 3D FEG operating at 5 kV. Prior toSEM imaging, samples on quartz were coated with ˜1 nm of Au/Pd using aPolaron SC 7620 sputtering system. A Renishaw inVia confocal Ramanmicroscope with less than 5 mW of 532 nm laser excitation and a 50×objective lens was used for Raman experiments. UV-Vis optical absorptionmeasurements were performed with a PerkinElmer Lambda 950spectrophotometer equipped with a 60 mm integrating sphere. ˜125 nmthick films were used for optical measurements. Fourier transforminfrared (FTIR) spectroscopy was performed sing a Nicolet 6700instrument in transmission mode using double-side polished siliconsubstrates. Temperature-dependent resistivity and Hall effect data wereacquired on an Ecopia HMS 5000 system using the van der Pauw method withcurrents of 0.2-5.0 μA. Ohmic contacts were made by evaporating 250 nmof Ag through a shadow mask in a glovebox thermal evaporator with a basepressure of 5×10⁻⁶ Torr. Qualitative thermopower measurements werecarried out in a glovebox using a hotplate to establish an 80 Ktemperature gradient across the samples and a Keithley 2636 SourceMeterto determine the majority carrier type.

X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy (XPS) measurements were performed withan ES-CALAB MKII surface analysis instrument (VG Scientific). Theultrahigh vacuum multi-chamber system is equipped with a twin anodeX-ray source (Mg/Al) and a 150 mm hemispherical electron energyanalyzer. Spectra presented here were collected using Al Ka X-rays(1486.6 eV) in constant energy mode with a pass energy of 20 eV. Thebase pressure of the spectroscopy chamber was 5×10⁻¹⁰ energies werecalibrated by setting the Au 4f_(7/2) peak of a Au foil attached to thesurface of the sample to 84.0 eV. Deconvolution and spectral linefitting were carried out using Shirley backgrounds and Voigt lineshapesin the XPSPeak 4.1 software package. Samples were briefly exposed to airduring loading into the XPS chamber.

Secondary ion mass spectrometry (SIMS) was performed by Evans AnalyticalGroup on a Cameca dynamic SIMS instrument using 14.5 keV Cs ions foranions (S, O, H, C, Si) and 8 keV O2 ions for cations (Na, K, Mg, Ca,AI, Mo). Estimated detection limits were 2×10¹⁵ atoms/cm³ for Na, K, AI,and Mg, 5×10¹⁵ atoms/cm³ for Ca, 2×10¹⁸ atoms/cm³ for C, 1×10¹⁹atoms/cm³ for O and 2×10¹⁷ atoms/cm³ for H. Atomic concentrations areaccurate to within a factor of five. The depth scale was quantified bymeasuring the analysis craters with a stylus profilometer and confirmedby SEM imaging of the sectioned films.

Auger electron spectroscopic measurements were performed using amodified Physical Electronics Model 670 field emission scanning Augermicroprobe that has been described previously. For depth profilingexperiments a 5 kV, 20 nA primary electron beam was used in conjunctionwith a 3 kV Ar⁺ ion beam. Samples were rotated at 1 rpm duringsputtering and data acquisition. Direct spectra were numericallysmoothed and differentiated using the Savitsky-Golay algorithm.Elemental intensities were corrected by literature sensitivity factorsfor the instrument and the atomic concentration results were normalizedto 100%.

Synthesis and Structural Characterization

The ink used to prepare pyrite thin films in this exemplaryimplementation is a mixture of 1.0 M Fe(acac)₃ and 1.6 M sulfur inpyridine. Sulfur was used to increase the viscosity of the Fe(acac)₃solution to enable the deposition of uniform, relatively thick layers(100-125 nm) by spin coating (discussed above).

FIG. 3A illustrates an exemplary processing sequence for use with thepresent system, according to one embodiment. FIG. 3B illustrates amid-IR spectra, and FIG. 3C illustrates a far-IR spectra. The processingsequence includes three cycles of ink deposition 301 and air baking 302,303 followed by sequential annealing in H₂S and then sulfur gas 304 toyield ˜300 nm thick pyrite films. This film thickness was chosen becauseit is sufficient to absorb >95% of photons with hv>1.25 eV in oneoptical pass. Results yielded that both H₂S and sulfur annealing arerequired to make high-quality pyrite films: H₂S alone yields films ofpyrite contaminated with marcasite (orthorhombic FeS₂), while directsulfur annealing results in poor-quality, discontinuous pyrite layers.Single-layer films were characterized by FTIR spectroscopy after eachprocessing step in order to monitor the conversion of the Fe(acac)₃ inkfilms to iron oxides/salts and subsequent sulfurization of the ironoxides/salt films to pyrite (FIGS. 3B and 3C). Prior to heating, theorange-red dried ink layer has mid-IR and far-IR spectra essentiallyidentical to that of an Fe(acac)₃ standard (FIGS. 3B and 3C). The smallpeak at 485 cm⁻¹ in the ink spectrum is assigned to sulfur (labeled withan asterisk, FIG. 3C). This indicates that the dried ink is mainly asimple mixture of Fe(acac)₃ and sulfur. Air baking to 320° C. results ina near flatlining of the mid- and far-IR spectra (FIGS. 3B and 3C).While nonzero signal in the fingerprint region (900-1700 cm⁻¹) indicatesthe presence of organic residues in the film, it is clear that nearlyall of the organics are decomposed and/or volatilized during air bakingMost of the sulfur evaporates too, and the rest is oxidized to sulfate(explained below).

As discussed in more detail below, X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy(XPS) shows that the baked films are a mixture of iron oxides, sulfates,carbonates, and perhaps hydroxides (see FIG. 8). These films are lightbrown in color and amorphous by X-ray diffraction (XRD). Opticalabsorption spectra display clear Fe(acac)₃ absorption peaks before airbaking; after air baking, the molecular features are lost and thespectra show a monotonic absorption increase with an onset at ˜1.6 eV(see FIG. 13). Annealing the baked films in H₂S (1 atm, 390° C. for 12hours) converts the iron oxides/salts to pyrite (cubic FeS₂), asevidenced by the appearance of characteristic pyrite IR vibrations at292, 347, and 400 cm⁻¹, contaminated with a small amount of marcasite.The mid-IR spectra of H₂S annealed films are completely featureless.Annealing these mixed-phase pyrite/marcasite films in sulfur vapor(˜0.65 atm, 500° C. for 4 hours) converts marcasite to pyrite withoutcausing additional changes to the IR spectra (see FIGS. 3B and 3C).

FeS₂ films were prepared on fused quartz substrates andmolybdenum-coated soda lime glass substrates and characterized by SEM,XRD, Raman spectroscopy, and XPS. Quartz is a useful substrate foroptical and electrical studies, while Mo-coated glass is a promisingsubstrate for solar cell fabrication.

FIGS. 4A-C illustrate SEM and XRD data for a 270±30 nm thick film onquartz before and after sulfur annealing. Prior to sulfur annealing,these films consist of densely-packed but small grains of pyrite mixedwith a substantial fraction of marcasite (<10 vol %, as estimated by XRDpattern analysis). XRD shows clear marcasite {110}, {120}, and {211}reflections. Sulfur annealing converts the marcasite to pyrite andresults in significant grain growth, with apparent grain sizes of 50-150nm as determined by SEM, in good agreement with the grain sizedetermined by Scherrer analysis of synchrotron XRD patterns (100-150nm). Pyrite is the only phase detected by XRD after sulfur annealing.

FIGS. 5A-C illustrate SEM and XRD data for a typical 270±30 nm thickFeS₂ film on a Mo-coated glass substrate. Prior to sulfur annealing,these films consist of densely packed, small grains of pyrite with avery small marcasite impurity evident in XRD. Sulfur annealing (in thiscase at 550° C. for 8 hours) eliminates the marcasite and results intightly packed columnar pyrite grains, with most grains extending acrossthe entire film (apparent grain size: 270 nm tall×100-250 nm wide),which is a favorable morphology for efficient charge collection infuture pyrite solar cells. Sulfur annealing also converts some of theunderlying Mo layer to MoS₂, leading in this particular film to a 3-foldvolume expansion along the film normal necessary to accommodate the3.4-fold larger 2H—MoS₂ unit cell (106.4

³ for MoS₂ vs. 31.2

³ for Mo). The extent of Mo conversion can be controlled by tuning thesulfur annealing conditions, and phase-pure pyrite films are routinelyobtained from the Fe(acac)₃ ink with only partial conversion of Mo toMoS₂. Despite the dramatic volume expansion of the Mo layer, the pyritefilms are mechanically robust and strongly adherent to the substrate,easily passing the common tape peel tests. Similar results were recentlyreported for pyrite films grown on Mo-coated glass by chemical vapordeposition.

FIGS. 6A-B illustrate Raman spectra and high-resolution synchrotron XRDdata to more rigorously assess the phase composition of the FeS₂ films.Raman spectroscopy is more sensitive than conventional XRD to marcasiteimpurities near the film surface, while synchrotron-based capillary XRDis a uniquely sensitive technique for the detection of crystalline andamorphous phase impurities. H₂S-annealed films on Mo-coated glass andquartz substrates show Raman bands for both marcasite (at 323 cm⁻¹) andpyrite (at 341, 377, and 427 cm⁻¹, corresponding to the A_(g), E_(g),and T_(g)(3) vibrational modes, respectively). Two additional pyriteT_(g) vibration bands are present but concealed by the large peaks at341 and 377 cm⁻¹. Note that films grown on quartz contain a largerfraction of marcasite relative to pyrite because of the very lowconcentration of sodium and other alkalis in the quartz substrates.Sodium leaching has been observed to promote pyrite nucleation andgrowth at the expense of marcasite, for unknown reasons. Raman spectraof sulfur-annealed films show no sign of marcasite.

Synchrotron XRD was performed on beamline 11-BM of the Advanced PhotonSource at Argonne National Laboratory in transmission mode on a samplemade by loading a Kapton capillary with the powder scraped from eightsulfur-annealed films grown on glass substrates. All peaks in thepattern index to either pyrite or a-sulfur, with no other phasesdetected (FIG. 6C). This result shows that the presently disclosedFe(acac)₃ ink approach consistently produces phase-pure pyrite filmswithin the detection limits of state-of-the-art XRD. The trace sulfurcontamination originates from occasional condensation of sulfur vaporonto the films as they cool after annealing.

FIGS. 7A-B illustrate AES and SIMS data for a 300±30 nm thick pyritefilm on Mo-coated glass. FIG. 7C illustrates SIMS data for a 300±30 nmthick pyrite film on a Mo-coated silicon substrate. Auger electronspectroscopy (AES) and secondary ion mass spectrometry (SIMS) depthprofiles were employed to determine the bulk elemental composition ofsulfur-annealed pyrite films on Mo-coated glass and Mo-coated siliconsubstrates. The AES depth profile indicates that the sample can bedescribed as FeS₂/MoO_(0.03)S_(1.97)/MoO_(x)S_(2-x)/glass stack (withx>0.03). A large amount of potassium and smaller amounts of sodium,oxygen, and carbon were detected at the surface of the film. Elevatedlevels of potassium and oxygen were observed at the pyrite/MoS₂interface. All other elements were below AES detection limits (˜0.1 at.%). The SIMS profiles in FIG. 7B show the concentration of C, H, O, Na,K, AI, Ca, and Mg as a function of depth into the film stack. Raw ioncounts for three matrix elements (S, Mo, and Si) are also plotted totrack position within the film stack. Average impurity concentrations inthe pyrite layer are listed in Table 2 and compared to a similar filmmade by chemical vapor deposition (CVD). The largest impurity is oxygen(˜0.9 at. %), followed by potassium (0.4%), sodium (0.14%), carbon(0.05%), hydrogen (0.034%), aluminum (0.016%), calcium (˜10 ppm), andmagnesium (<1 ppm), giving a total impurity load of approximately 1.5at. %. The measurements do not reveal much about the location of theseelements in the film, i.e., whether they are substitutional impurities,interstitials, defect clusters, amorphous nanoscale phase domains (e.g.,a-Fe₂O₃), or segregated species at the surfaces and grain boundaries. Inthe unlikely case that the 0.9 at. % oxygen is uniformly distributed onsulfur sites (O_(s) impurities), a stoichiometry of FeO_(0.027)S_(1.973)is expected, which is in any case too light in oxygen to observe theincreased band gap of iron oxysulfide alloys predicted by recent DFTcalculations (see below). Note that due to the experimental conditionsand the lack of SIMS standards for pyrite, it is estimated that theconcentrations reported here are accurate only to within a factor offive.

Resulting oxygen levels are ˜20 times higher while carbon and hydrogenlevels are ˜7 times lower for films made from Fe(acac)₃ ink rather thanCVD (Table 2). These differences are caused by baking the Fe(acac)₃ inklayer in an oxidizing environment (air), which efficiently combusts theorganics (yielding low C and H) but produces oxides (high 0). Incontrast, the present CVD synthesis utilizes a reducing environment (thereaction of Fe(acac)₃ and tert-butyldisulfide in argon at 300° C.) thatminimizes oxygen incorporation but is less effective at removing C and Hfrom the films. Subsequent annealing of the films in H2S and sulfur (forink-made films) or sulfur only (CVD films) is apparently unable to erasethe initial differences in impurity content inherited from the firststeps of film processing. Note that the concentration of alkalis (K andNa) is ˜4 times higher in the ink-made films and speculate that theextended annealing times used to fabricate these films result in greateralkali diffusion from the glass.

TABLE 2 Impurity Content of Pyrite Films Made via Fe(acac)₃ Ink vs. CVDFe(acac)₃ CVD⁴ Fe(acac)₃ Mo/glass Mo/glass Mo/Si (ppm) (ppm) (ppm)oxygen 8800 400 1750 ptassium 3800 1000 50 sodium 1400 400 165 carbon500 4000 900 hydrogen 340 2500 20-100 aluminum 160 100 165 calcium 10 202-6  magnesium <1 20 <1 Note: Films on Mo-coated glass used identicalsubstrates provided by a commercial supplier, while the mo-coated Sisubstrate was prepared using an in-house sputter tool.

To determine the origin of the various impurities in the pyrite film onMo-coated glass, the SIMS depth profile of this film is compared withdata for a 300±30 nm thick film made on a Mo-coated, undoped siliconsubstrate (FIG. 7C). The Mo interlayer was necessary to growhigh-quality, uniform pyrite films on the silicon substrates. Becausethe i-Si substrate is extremely pure, even by SIMS standards, it cannotbe a source of any impurity other than Si itself. Indeed, theconcentrations of all measured impurities fell below their SIMSdetection limits after sputtering several hundred nanometers into the Sisubstrate (lower graph in FIG. 7C). An analysis of the S, Mo, 0, and Sidepth profiles suggest that this film can be described as aFeS₂/MoO_(0.1)S_(1.9)/MoO_(0.45)S_(1.55)/MoO_(x)/MO/Si stack. Of theelements monitored by SIMS, K and Na are present in much lowerconcentrations, and O and H in somewhat lower concentrations, in thepyrite film on the Mo-coated Si substrate (Table 2), while the levels ofthe other elements in the two films are equal within experimental error.The much lower level of alkalis in the film on Mo-coated Si indicatesthat leaching from glass is the principal source of alkali contaminationin the pyrite layer grown on Mo-coated glass, as expected. However, Kand Na are still present in substantial amounts (50 and 165 ppm) in theglass-free Si sample. Possible secondary sources of alkalis include theFe(acac)₃ ink and the sputtered Mo layer. Of the three ink components,Fe(acac)₃ and sulfur contain very little alkalis (e.g., 2.9 ppm Na and<0.1 ppm K according to the Fe(acac)₃ manufacturer; and cannot be thesource of the contamination. Although the purity of the pyridine solventis unknown, the Mo layer is believed to be the main source of alkalis inthe film on Mo-coated silicon. The Mo was sputtered in-house from a99.95% Mo target with 20 ppm of Na and 30 ppm of K and could account forthe measured alkalis after diffusing throughout the film during airbaking and annealing. The SIMS profiles show that this Mo layer is alsoheavily contaminated with oxygen and carbon compared to the Mo layers onglass substrates (which were supplied by a commercial manufacturer andundoubtedly feature higher purity and density), probably due tocontamination of the argon process gas by air. Morphological differencesbetween the commercial and homemade Mo layers may result in a less densepyrite layer on the Mo-coated silicon and explain the lower 0 and Hcontent of these films. The shape of the aluminum profile shows that Alis from the Fe(acac) ink, which is consistent with the relatively highconcentration of Al in the present Fe(acac)₃ starting material (30.5ppm). In summary, the SIMS data show that (i) pyrite films made fromFe(acac)₃ ink contain relatively large amounts of oxygen (0.2-0.9%) andsmall amounts of carbon and hydrogen, (ii) alkalis are exogenousimpurities leached from the glass substrate or molybdenum layer, and(iii) aluminum comes from the ink. Other elements are undoubtedlypresent in the pyrite layers at concentrations that could affect theelectronic properties of these films.

FIG. 8 illustrates exemplary surface composition by XPS. XPS was used todetermine the elemental composition of the surface of sulfur-annealedpyrite films on quartz and Mo-coated glass substrates as well as anair-baked ink layer on a quartz substrate. FIG. 8 shows Fe 2p, S 2p, O1s, C 1s, K 2p, and Na 1s spectra for these three films. Spectra ofpyrite films on Mo-coated glass and quartz are very similar, differingmainly in the absence of K signal from films on quartz, so the presentdisclosure includes only the films on Mo-coated glass.

Fe 2p spectra of the pyrite films on Mo-coated glass are dominated bypyrite peaks (2p_(3/2) at 707.3 eV and 2p_(1/2) at 720.2 eV). Both ofthese peaks shows high-energy tails that are thought to be caused byslight Fe(III)-S or perhaps Fe(III)-O contamination of the surface,which has been observed even on single crystals cleaved in UHV as aresult of spontaneous oxidation of Fe(II) to form surface monosulfide,S^(2-.42) Otherwise the Fe 2p spectra are clean and show no sign ofadditional iron species.

S 2p spectra show three sulfur species, each of which is fit as adoublet with a spin-orbit splitting of 1.2 eV: pyrite lattice persulfide(S²⁻ ₂) with a 2P_(3/2) binding energy of 162.7 eV; polysulfides (S²⁻_(n)), which are a mixture of molecules deposited as a residue duringsulfur annealing, at 164.5 eV; and sulfates (SO²⁻ ₄) at 168.5 eV, whichare believed to be produced during brief exposure of the sample to airwhile loading the XPS chamber (<1 minute).

O 1s spectra show a broad peak at 532.0 eV with a shoulder at higherenergy. These spectra fit well with two peaks: one at 532.0 eV,attributed to a mixture of KOH, NaOH, and sulfates, and a second at533.6 eV, which is characteristic of adsorbed water. In general, O 1sbinding energies are 529.3-530.5 eV for oxide (O²⁻), 531.4-532.0 eV forhydroxide (OH), and 533-534 eV for adsorbed H₂O. The absence of an O²⁻peak indicates that oxides are not present on the film surface indetectable concentrations.

The C 1s spectra contain both carbon and potassium peaks. The C 1sfeature is a peak with a shoulder at high energy. It is fit well bypeaks at 285.1 eV (C—C and C—H) and 286.1 eV (C—O) due to the adsorptionof adventitious hydrocarbons and alcohols onto the film surface.Relatively large K 2p peaks at 293.3 eV and 296.0 eV (˜2:1 intensityratio, spin-orbit splitting of 2.7 eV) indicate a substantial amount ofone or more potassium compounds on the film surface, which could includepotassium sulfides (K₂S, KS, K₂S₃, KS₂, K₂S₅, or KS₃), oxides (K₂O, KO,or KO₂), and/or hydrolysis products such as KSH, KOH, KOOH, and so on.Some sodium species are also present (Na 1s peak at ˜1072.0 eV,consistent with Na_(x)S_(y), NSH, NaOH, etc.). Metallic K can be ruledout, for which the K 2p peaks would appear at 294.4 eV and 297.1 eV.Metallic Na can also be ruled out based on the position of the NaKL₂₃L₂₃ Auger peak at 496.5 eV (metallic Na appears at 492 eV, data notshown). The presence of alkali oxides and oxyhydroxides is ruled outbased on the absence of an O²⁻ peak at 529.8±0.4 eV. K and Na arepresent as a mixture of hydroxides and various S-containing species(sulfides, hydroxysulfides, sulfates). Sulfur in K₂S and Na₂S, found at162.0 eV, could easily be present but would be obscured by the largepersulfide peak. Oxygen in KOH, NaOH, Na₂SO₄ is found at 532.3±0.4 eVand accounts for the principal XP peak in the present O 1s spectra. Bothof these alkali metal ions diffuse into the pyrite film from the glasssubstrate during annealing and segregate at the film surface assulfides. Upon brief exposure to air, the sulfides rapidly hydrolyze toproduce KOH, NaOH, and small amounts of sulfates. The absence ofoxidized iron species suggests that pyrite itself is not oxidized bybrief air exposure. Rather, the alkali sulfide surface contamination israpidly hydrolyzed in air. This surface contamination may act to protectthe underlying pyrite from rapid chemical attack. Note that the alkalicompounds are easily removed from the surface by rinsing with water(vide infra), which may be relevant for solar cell manufacturing (forexample, during CBD deposition of window layers).

Compared to the film on Mo-coated glass, the film made on quartz lacks apotassium signal at 293-296 eV and has noticeably less sulfate both inthe S 2p and O 1s spectra, probably as a result of much less alkalisulfide contamination on the film surface. Surprisingly, the film onquartz shows a small Na peak at 1072.5 eV. This Na peak is not presentin the baked ink, apparently because the processing conditions (320° C.for 30 minutes) are too mild for sodium to diffuse to the substratesurface. During H₂S or sulfur annealing, however, sodium appears on thesurface; Na is observed by XPS even on bare quartz substrates after H₂Sannealing. In all other ways the two sulfur-annealed films appear nearlyidentical in their surface composition.

FIGS. 9A-C illustrate XP spectra of a sulfur-annealed pyrite film on aMo-coated glass substrate freshly prepared, exposed to air for 10 hours,and then rinsed and deionized in water for 10 seconds. In order toinvestigate the surface chemistry of the pyrite films in more detail,the film on Mo-coated glass was remeasured after exposing it to air(FIG. 9B) and again after rinsing it in water (FIG. 9C). Spectra fromthe fresh film are reproduced in FIG. 9A. Exposure of the pyrite film toambient laboratory air for 10 hours results in significant changes tothe data, including large increases in K, Na, 0, and sulfate signal aswell as the appearance of a broad oxidized iron signal centered at 710.7eV. Based on the Fe 2p_(3/2) peak position and the absence of O²⁻ in theoxygen spectrum, this oxidized iron species can be assigned as somecombination of Fe(OH)₃, FeSO₄ (Fe 2p_(3/2)=711.3 eV, O 1s=532.5 eV), orFeCO₃ (Fe 2p_(3/2)=710.2 eV, C 1s=289.4 eV, and O 1s=531.9 eV), butprobably not Fe(OH)₂ (Fe 2p_(3/2)=709.5 eV) or Fe₂(SO₄)₃ (Fe2p_(3/2)=713.5 eV). The lack of an O²⁻ peak at 529.8±0.4 eV indicatesthat oxides and oxyhydroxides such as hematite (α-Fe203), goethite(α-FeOOH), lepidocrocite (γ-FeOOH), maghemite (γ-Fe₂O₃), and magnetite(Fe₃O₄) are not formed in detectable quantities in this experiment.

The major change in the S 2p spectrum after air exposure is asignificant increase in sulfate (169.1 eV) relative to persulfide andpolysulfide, consistent with formation of FeSO₄ and accumulation ofalkali sulfates. The O 1s spectrum shows a substantial increase in peakintensity, but the shape of the spectrum is largely unchanged except forthe appearance of a pronounced shoulder at high energy (534.9 eV), whichhas yet to be assigned. The main oxygen peak centered at 532.4 eV iscomposed of an admixture of hydroxide, sulfate, and carbonate (at 532.0eV) and adsorbed water (at 533.0 eV). Changes in the C 1s spectruminclude the growth of the C—O signal at 286.4 eV and the appearance ofcarbonate (CO²⁻ ₃) at 289.3 eV, which may represent FeCO₃ or alkalicarbonates. The adventitious carbon peak at 284.8 eV is significantlysmaller than the other carbon peaks after air exposure.

The most striking effect of air exposure is the large increase in K andNa signals. It is believed that air exposure induces the diffusion ofalkali ions along grain boundaries and their accumulation at thehydrated surface of the film. Alkali ions (particularly sodium) areknown to be mobile in polycrystalline chalcogenide films even at roomtemperature. Evidently potassium is also very mobile in the presentlydisclosed films. Taken together, these XPS data support a picture inwhich a sub-nanometer thick film of hydrated alkali and iron hydroxides,sulfates, and carbonates builds up on the pyrite surface over the firstten hours of air exposure. These species may exist as islands on thepyrite surface rather than a continuous layer.

After XPS measurement, the oxidized pyrite film was immersed indeionized water for 10 seconds, dried, and measured again. As FIG. 9Cillustrates, the water rinse completely removes the K, Na, and sulfatespecies from the film surface, as expected for these highly solublespecies. Yet the oxidized iron (710.7 eV) persists. The appearance ofO²⁻ (530.3 eV) and continued presence of OH⁻ (531.4 eV) suggests thatsome of the oxidized iron is FeOOH. It is likely that a mixture of ironoxides (e.g., α-Fe₂O3), oxyhydroxides, and hydroxides covers the pyritesurface. Each of these iron species is quite insoluble in deionizedwater, so they may form either during the water rinse or in the timerequired to dry the film and load it into the XPS chamber. In addition,the clear presence of carbonate on the rinsed film (C 1s at 288.6 eV andO 1s at 532.4 eV) indicates that some fraction of the oxidized iron isFeCO₃. The origin of the broad peak at 538.4 eV in the O 1s spectrum isunclear.

Optical Properties of Pyrite Films

FIGS. 10A-C illustrate optical properties of exemplary pyrite films. Theoptical absorption coefficient (a) and optical band gap (E_(g)) of FeS₂films on quartz substrates were determined from transmittance andreflectance measurements using an integrating sphere. Films weremeasured before and after sulfur annealing in order to determine theeffect of the small marcasite impurity (<10 vol %) on the opticalproperties of the mixed-phase films. FIGS. 10A and B illustrate that αand E_(g) are essentially unchanged by sulfur annealing despite fullconversion of marcasite to pyrite (FIG. 10C). In both films, a reaches avalue of 7×104 cm⁻¹ at hv=1.25 eV (a⁻¹=143 nm) and levels off at3.4-3.9×10⁵ cm⁻¹ for hv>1.75 eV (α⁻¹<29 nm), while the band gaps fitwell to allowed indirect transitions with E_(g)=0.85-0.87±0.05 eV. FIG.10A compares the film data with recent results for a pyrite singlecrystal measured by spectroscopic ellipsometry and a density functionaltheory (DFT) model of bulk pyrite. While the shape of all four curves issimilar, a of the films is about half as large as that of the singlecrystals for hv>2 eV because voids and surface roughness in the filmsresult in an overestimation of the effective film thickness. Fully denseand flat films likely yield a values similar to those of the singlecrystals (i.e., α⁻¹<15 nm for hv>2 eV). It is important to note that theband gap of these films is 0.1-0.15 e V smaller than the gaps measuredfor single crystals (FIG. 10B) or pyrite films grown by CVD (seemarcasite band gap discussion below). The ink-made films also show asofter band edge (i.e., a more pronounced sub-gap absorption tail) thanthe CVD films (vide infra). The most likely cause of the smaller bandgap and more extended sub-gap absorption tail is greater structuraldisorder and higher defect concentrations in the present Fe(acac)₃-madefilms, possibly as a result of producing pyrite via sulfurization ofamorphous iron oxides/salts rather than “direct” synthesis ofcrystalline pyrite by CVD.

Optical Properties and Band Gap of Marcasite

The fact that a substantial marcasite impurity is invisible in theoptical absorption spectra of the presently disclosed mixed-phase filmsraises renewed questions about the band gap and optical functions ofmarcasite. Marcasite has long been said to have a band gap of ˜0.34 eV,which would make it unsuitable for solar energy conversion in bulk formand a deleterious phase impurity in pyrite. Development has recentlychallenged this notion by presenting rigorous density functional theory(DFT) calculations indicating that marcasite probably has a larger bandgap than pyrite. The work pointed out that the purported value of themarcasite gap is based on variable-temperature resistivity data from asingle natural marcasite crystal published in 1980. Fitting ofresistivity data is an unreliable way to determine the band gap of asemiconductor of unknown purity and carrier mobility and should beverified with more direct techniques. The present experiments confirmedthe results of Sun et al. with DFT calculations of marcasite, findingthe band gaps of marcasite and pyrite to be 0.79 eV and 0.63 eV,respectively, at the generalized gradient approximation (GGA) level oftheory. The present mixed-phase marcasite/pyrite thin films provide anopportunity to test these DFT predictions against experimental data.

FIGS. 11A-D illustrate exemplary marcasite optical properties.Definitive measurements of the optical properties of marcasite requiresthe growth of thin films with significantly more marcasite content thanhas been possible using the present Fe(acac)₃ ink route.Optically-transparent FeS₂ films are possible that are ˜50 vol %marcasite via CVD growth on sodium-free substrates such as quartz. Phasequantification was performed using XRD pattern analysis. The as-grownCVD films show large marcasite peaks in both XRD and Raman data (FIGS.11A-B). Careful sulfur annealing of these films converts marcasite topyrite, yielding phase-pure pyrite films while avoiding significantchanges to film microstructure that would complicate spectralcomparisons (FIGS. 11A-B). Optical measurements of the films before andafter annealing show only subtle differences in absorptivity spectra andestimated optical band gap (FIGS. 11C-D). The main differences are: (i)mixed-phase films have a slightly smaller band gap than phase-purepyrite films (0.93 eV versus 0.97 eV); (ii) mixed-phase films feature asmall shoulder at ˜1.25 eV, absent in phase-pure films; (iii)mixed-phase films have a more gradual increase in absorptioncoefficient; (iv) phase-pure films show a more pronounced dip inabsorptivity at ˜3 eV. The spectra of both types of films plateau at a˜5.5×105 cm⁻¹ for photon energies above 2-2.25 eV. These data providestrong evidence that the optical band gap of marcasite is at least aslarge as that of pyrite, contrary to previous belief and in agreementwith recent DFT calculations. Furthermore, the absorptivity spectra ofthe two polymorphs appear to be quite similar across the solar window.

These conclusions are further strengthened by the excellent agreementbetween experimental and computed absorptivity spectra (FIG. 11C).Calculated absorptivity spectra of pyrite and marcasite were derivedfrom their respective optical functions as determined by DFT.Remarkably, the calculated spectra capture all of the subtle differencesin the experimental data, including the shoulder at ˜1.25 e V, thesteeper absorption rise for pyrite, and the dip in absorptivity at ˜3eV. The calculated spectra also plateau at a similar u value for bothpolymorphs, in agreement with experiment (note, however, thatα_(calculated) ˜8-9×105 cm⁻¹ but α_(experimental) ˜5.5×105 cm⁻¹,suggesting that the thin films contain voids, as mentioned above for theink-made films). The excellent agreement between the spectra validatesthe accuracy of recent DFT models for both marcasite and pyrite. Resultsindicate that the marcasite electronic and optical band gaps are atleast as large as those of pyrite. Rather than being inherentlyunsuitable for solar energy conversion, pure marcasite films—if theycould be synthesized—may very well have better optical and electronicproperties than pyrite itself. The results do not imply, however, thatmarcasite is necessarily a benign impurity in pyrite. Although marcasitealmost certainly has a larger gap than pyrite and similar absorptivity,the existence of band edge offsets and electronic defects at thepyrite/marcasite interface as well as other types of disorder may resultin degraded electronic properties for mixed-phase pyrite/marcasite thinfilms. Therefore the synthesis of phase-pure films—whether pyrite ormarcasite—remains desirable for solar energy applications.

Electrical Properties

FIG. 12 illustrates exemplary electrical resistivity of pyrite andmixed-phase FeS₂ films. The electrical properties of FeS₂ films onquartz substrates were assessed by variable temperature Hall effectmeasurements (80-350 K) in a van der Pauw geometry with ohmic contactsmade to the samples by evaporated silver pads and gold-coated copperpins. Three sulfur annealed, phase-pure pyrite films and four H₂Sannealed, mixed-phase films were studied. The in-plane Hall mobility ofall films is too low to be measured (<1 cm² V⁻¹S⁻¹), which also preventsdetermination of the carrier type from the sign of the Hall voltage.However, qualitative thermopower measurements indicate that all of thefilms are p-type. The dark resistivity before and after sulfur annealingis 0.65±0.10 and 1.9±0.83 Ωcm at room temperature and 15±4.5 and 38±24Ωcm at 80 K, respectively (FIG. 12). Arrhenius plots of the resistivityare curved downwards. The resistivity of each film shows a temperaturedependence of the form ρ=ρ₀exp [(T₀/T)^(a)] with a≈0.5 (FIG. 12). Usinga=0.5 gives ρ₀=0.0236 and 0.0576 Ωcm and T₀=3188 and 2899 K for thefilms before and after sulfur annealing. The logarithmic derivativeanalysis employed by Baruth et al. yields a=0.59 and 0.62 for these twofilms. Best fits to ρ=ρ₀exp [(T₀/T)^(a)] for the seven ink-made filmsgive similar values to films grown by CVD and reactive sputtering (seeFIG. 21A and Table 4). A temperature-dependent resistivity with a≈0.5 isoften interpreted as evidence of Efros-Shklovskii variable range hopping(ES-VRH) transport. However, the curved Arrhenius data can be fitequally well by other models, such as the model proposed by Werner thatconsiders transport in polycrystalline films to be limited by thermionicemission across inhomogeneous gram boundaries with a Gaussiandistribution of barrier heights. Resistivity in the Werner model isgiven by,

$\left. {\rho = {\rho_{0}{\exp \mspace{14mu}\left\lbrack {{q\left( {\Phi - {\frac{1}{2{kT}\text{/}q}{\sigma\Phi}^{2}}} \right)}\text{/}{kT}} \right)}}} \right\rbrack$

where Φ is the average barrier height and σ_(Φ) is the standarddeviation of the barrier height. Fits to this model yield Φ=40 meV andσ_(Φ)=12 meV for films both before and after sulfur annealing.Remarkably, FeS₂ films show very similar resistivity curves and fit wellto either model regardless of fabrication method (ink, CVD, orsputtering) and marcasite content (FIG. 21).

The fact that nearly all unintentionally doped pyrite thin films haveessentially the same electrical properties (i.e., high conductivity, lowmobility, weakly-activated p-type transport characteristic of a highlydoped but non-degenerate semiconductor) regardless of stoichiometry andfabrication method implies that a single robust bulk or surface effectdominates the electrical behavior of these films. Possible explanationsfor the universal behavior of pyrite films include the presence of (i) aubiquitous extrinsic dopant, e.g., oxygen; (ii) nanoscale phaseimpurities, especially amorphous domains; (iii) surface effects,particularly a hole accumulation or inversion layer. Ongoing studies ofsynthetic pyrite single crystals are aiding the evaluation of thesethree possibilities. In stark contrast to the pyrite films,nominally-undoped pyrite single crystals are n-type, withroom-temperature electron concentrations of 10¹⁵-10¹⁶ cm⁻³, mobilitiesof 200-400 cm² V⁻¹s⁻¹, and activation energies of ˜200 meV. Thefollowing is a brief assessment of the three explanations mentionedabove in light of initial comparisons between the films and singlecrystals:

(i) Ubiquitous dopant such as oxygen. It is possible that pyrite filmsshow very similar electrical properties because they contain a commondopant. The identity of the alleged dopant is an open question. Nativedefects appear to be ruled out based on both the lack of a correlationbetween the iron-to-sulfur ratio and film properties as well as recentcalculations showing that native defects should exist only in negligibleconcentration in bulk pyrite and cannot account for the large carrierdensities observed in pyrite films. Non-native defects such assubstitutional oxygen or interstitial hydrogen are more plausibleuniversal dopants in pyrite. However, the present single crystals andfilms show similar levels of oxygen, hydrogen, and carbon via elementalanalysis, yet the single crystals are n-type, not p-type, and haveorders of magnitude lower carrier concentration than the films. Thus, aubiquitous dopant such as oxygen is not responsible for the universalelectrical properties of pyrite films. However, more complicated defectassociations and clusters may be present in films but absent in singlecrystals (due to the different processing conditions) and could inprinciple explain the distinct behavior of these two types of pyritesamples.

(ii) Nanoscale amorphous impurities. It is probably impossible to ruleout the presence of nanoscale amorphous impurities in pyrite films usingXRD, Raman spectroscopy, and magnetic measurements. Such impurities mayexist as a result of imperfect crystallization due to the relatively lowprocessing temperatures and complicated carbon-containing precursorsused to make the films. Single crystals show much different electricalbehavior because they are made from the elements at higher temperaturesand therefore lack the amorphous domains that plague the films. Theabsence of amorphous regions in single crystals would also explain whyphotoelectrochemical and Schottky solar cells based on single crystalscan achieve very high external quantum efficiency, whereas films are sofar not photoactive. The excellent electrical properties of the presentsingle crystals shows that phase impurities are not inevitable inpyrite, if indeed they are present at all in properly-made pyrite films.

(iii) Hole accumulation/inversion layer. Pyrite films may be heavilyhole doped and highly conductive because of a hole-rich layer that formsat the crystal surface (accumulation layer in p-type material orinversion layer in n-type material). Surface accumulation/inversionlayers are well known in semiconductors such as HgCdTe and InN and, ifpersistent, can dominate the electrical properties of these materials.Using a combination of Hall effect and ultraviolet photoelectronspectroscopy (UPS) measurements, Bronold et al. deduced that a surfacehole inversion layer is present on n-type pyrite single crystals. Thehole inversion layer is believed to result from a large concentration ofsurface states located near the valence band edge. The present Halleffect data on single crystals are consistent with the coexistence of ann-type bulk layer and a p-type surface layer. For geometric reasons,surface effects are more severe in polycrystalline thin films thansingle crystals, and it is easy to envision a hole-rich surface layercontrolling charge transport in pyrite films. Chemical passivation ofthe alleged surface states could eliminate this surface layer and enablemore rational control of the electrical behavior of pyrite films forsolar cells.

FIGS. 13A-B illustrate UV-Vis spectra of exemplary Fe(acac)₃ ink andfilms, according to one embodiment. FIG. 13 is discussed above.

FIGS. 14A-C illustrate ultraslow conventional XRD scans of a sulfurannealed pyrite film on a quartz substrate.

FIG. 15 illustrates SEM and XRD data for a Mo-coated glass substrate.FIG. 16 illustrates exemplary characterization of Mo-coated glasssubstrates. FIG. 17 illustrates ultraslow conventional XRD scans of asulfur-annealed pyrite film on a Mo-coated glass substrate.

DFT Model of Marcasite

FIGS. 18A-B illustrate the bulk unit cell and density states ofmarcasite. FIGS. 19A-B illustrate the band structure of and dielectricfunctions of marcasite. Marcasite iron disulfide (FeS₂) has anorthorhombic Pnnm crystal structure, where the body-centered Fe atomsare surrounded by an octahedral set of S atoms, as depicted in FIG. 18.Theoretical calculations for bulk marcasite were performed usmg theVienna Ab-initio Simulation Package (VASP) with the projector augmentedwave (PAW) method. The generalized gradient approximation (GGA) was usedto describe the exchange-correlation interaction among electrons. Thepresent studies show that the qualitative trends of structural andelectronic properties of bulk pyrite and marcasite are not much affectedby the Hubbard-U correction. Furthermore, the optical features of pyriteare satisfactorily described by GGA. An energy cutoff of 350 eV was usedfor the plane-wave basis expansion. A 10×8×13 k-grid mesh was used tosample the Brillouin zone (BZ). All atoms were fully relaxed until thecalculated force on each atom was smaller than 0.01 eV/A.

The calculated lattice constants of bulk marcasite are 4.443 A, 5.413 A,and 3.379 A, as listed in Table 3. These values agree better than 0.2%with the corresponding experimental data and are also very close toother DFT calculations. The S—S bond length in marcasite, 2.27

, is noticeably larger than that in pyrite, 2.16

. The Fe—S bond length of 2.23

in marcasite is slightly smaller than that in pyrite, 2.27

. An indirect band gap of 0.79 eV was obtained, a value that iscomparable with the previous theoretical results. From the totalenergies of different bulk phases, it is found that marcasite is 24 meVper FeS₂ unit more stable than pyrite. Nevertheless, the relativestability of pyrite and marcasite may change with the use of differentfunctionals in the calculations. For example, Sun et al. found that theground state is marcasite in GGA and GGA+U but pyrite in the frameworkof the local density approximation (LDA), whereas Spagnoli et al.reported that marcasite is more stable with the LDA approach.

The density of states (DOS) of bulk marcasite is shown in FIG. 18B. Thevalence band of marcasite is rather broad compared to the sharp narrowvalence band of bulk pyrite, which is dominated by Fe t_(2g) states. DOSprojections into Fe and S atoms indicate that the small peak at −0.4 eVis mostly from the Fe d_(z) ² orbitals. Some Fe—S hybridization isobvious at the valence band maximum (VBM) near the X point of theBrillouin zone (BZ) in the band structure in FIG. 19A. Here, a colorscale is used to indicate the contributions from Fe and S atoms. Incontrast to the dominant contribution from the S-ppσ* orbital of pyrite,the conduction band minimum (CBM) of marcasite at the T point originatesalmost completely from the Fe d-orbitals. The calculated electroneffective mass of marcasite is 1.11-1.36m_(e) (depending on crystaldirection, where m_(e) is the rest mass of a free electron) at the CBM,and the effective hole mass is about 0.4 m_(e). The electron and holeeffective mass for pyrite at the GGA level of theory are 0.45 m_(e) and2.75-3.56 m_(e), respectively.

TABLE 3 Calculated Lattice Constants of Bulk Marcasite a (Å) b (Å) c (Å)E_(g) (eV) This Work^(a) 4.4430 5.4130 3.3792 0.79 Ref. 7 4.4382 5.40943.3884 0.81 Exp.^(b) 4.443 5.425 3.387 0.34 Pyrite^(c) 5.418 — — 0.63Notes: ^(a)Band gap based on calculated lattice constants. E_(g) = 0.78eV if experimental lattice constants are used. ^(b)Band gap determinedby fitting resistivity vs. T data. ^(c)Band gap based on experimentallattice constant. E_(g) = 0.4 eV if calculated lattice constant (5.403Å) is used.

FIG. 19B shows the calculated dielectric functions of bulk marcasite inthree different crystal directions, together with results for pyrite. Asreported previously, DFT calculations reproduce well the main featuresin the real and imaginary parts of the dielectric function of pyrite,indicating the appropriateness of the present approach and parametersfor the determination of optical properties of iron disulfide compounds.For marcasite, the three principal axes are different and hence thedielectric matrix has three distinct diagonal elements. The mainfeatures of the dielectric functions along the three axes are rathersimilar (FIG. 19B). Using the ∈₂(ω) curve along a axis as an example, itis interesting to see that a pronounced peak develops right above 1.0eV, about 0.4 eV below the optical absorption threshold of pyrite. Notethat the Hubbard-U correction was omitted for both marcasite and pyriteand the band gap of pyrite is even slightly smaller, 0.63 eV. Therefore,marcasite is predicted to be a stronger absorber in the red and infraredregions of the spectrum. The second main absorption peak of marcasiteshifts to 2.6 eV, about 0.5 eV above the main absorption peak of pyrite.From both band structure and optical functions, the presence ofmarcasite grains in pyrite samples should improve light absorption.

The examination then turned to tracing the origins of main criticalpoints (CPs) of the ∈₂(ω) curve (indicated with arrows in FIG. 19A).This is done by conducing k- and energy-resolved analyses with momentummatrix elements, |{dot over (P)}_(mn)|², throughout the BZ. Here, m andn are band indices, and only dipole transitions were considered. It wasfound that the main contribution to CP “A” is the transition near theVBM, as indicated in FIG. 19A, with both initial and final states thehybridized Fe-d_(xz,yz) and S-p_(z) states. The major CP structurecentered at 2.6 eV (denoted as “C”) can be attributed to the transitionnear the R and T points in the BZ, as highlighted in FIG. 19A. Moreexplicitly, it results from transitions (i) from the occupied Fe-d_(yz)states to a mixture of Fe-d and S-p orbitals at the R point, and (ii)from the Fe-t_(2g) states to Fe-d_(xz) states at the CBM at the T point.For the CP structure “E” at 3.7 eV, as marked by the green arrow in FIG.S9 a, the major contribution is from transitions between the mixtures ofF-e_(g)/S-p_(z) states and Fe-d_(xz,yz)/S-p_(z) states. Two relativelyweak peaks “B” and “D” were also identified in the present DFTcalculations, at ˜1.9 eV and ˜3.1 eV, respectively.

FIG. 20 illustrates the calculated absorption coefficient of marcasiteand pyrite. The absorption coefficient (a) of both marcasite and pyritewas calculated from the respective optical functions as determined byDFT. The absorptivity spectra are plotted in FIG. 20.

FIGS. 21A-B illustrate Arrhenius plots of resistivity for FeS₂ filmsmade by Fe(acac)₃ ink, CVD, and reactive sputtering.

TABLE 4 Fit Parameters For Data in FIGS. 21A-B Sample ρ₀ (hopping) T₀(hopping) a (hopping) ρ₀ (Werner) Φ (Werner) σ_(Φ) (Werner) Ink, H₂S0.050 ± 0.022 1780 ± 830 0.57 ± 0.05 0.153 0.0405 0.0117 Ink, S 0.094 ±0.010 1860 ± 370 0.56 ± 0.01 0.314 0.0406 0.0123 CVD, as made 0.01184130 0.451 0.0851 0.0376 0.012 CVD, S 0.105 2770 0.49 0.537 0.0383 0.012Sputtered 0.0088 3070 0.512 0.0579 0.041 0.0114

Iron pyrite thin films synthesized from an Fe(acac)₃ ink have beendisclosed. Phase-pure, polycrystalline iron pyrite thin films have beenfabricated by solution phase deposition of an Fe(acac)₃/sulfur inkfollowed by sequential annealing in air, H₂S, and sulfur gas attemperatures ranging from 320° C. to 550° C. FTIR and XPS data show thatthe acetylacetonate ink layer is first converted to a mixture of ironoxides, hydroxides, sulfates, and carbonates by air annealing and thensulfurized to form pyrite. The sulfur-annealed films are pure-phasepyrite to within the detection limit of synchrotron XRD and Ramanspectroscopy. Films on Mo-coated glass substrates consist ofdensely-packed columnar grains and are uniform in thickness (±5%),fairly smooth (RMS roughness on the order of 10% of the film thickness),free of cracks and pinholes, and mechanically adherent and robust. Thesefilms can be described as FeS₂/MoO_(0.03)S_(1.97)/MoO_(x)S_(2-x)/glassstacks (with x>0.03). SIMS shows that the total impurity load in thepyrite layers of these films is ˜1.5 at %, with a ˜20-fold largerconcentration of oxygen but ˜7-fold smaller amounts of carbon andhydrogen than similar films produced by CVD. Detailed XPS data show that(i) potassium and sodium accumulate on the film surface, (ii) airexposure results in the slow buildup of a layer of hydrated alkali andiron hydroxides, sulfates, and carbonates, and (iii) rinsing theoxidized films in water completely removes the alkali and sulfatecontaminants but not the insoluble oxidized iron species. Films grown onquartz substrates have an indirect optical band gap of 0.87±0.05 eV,which is 0.1-0.15 eV smaller than that of CVD and single crystalsamples, perhaps reflecting greater structural disorder or higher defectconcentrations in the solution-deposited films. Optical measurements ofmarcasite-rich samples indicate that marcasite has a band gap at leastas large as that of pyrite and that the two polymorphs share similarabsorptivity spectra, in excellent agreement with DFT results. Thein-plane electrical properties of these films are qualitativelyidentical to nearly all other unintentionally-doped FeS₂ samples in theliterature: regardless of the marcasite content and impurity load, thefilms show p-type, weakly-activated transport with a curved Arrheniusplot, a room-temperature resistivity of ˜1 Ωcm, and a hole mobility thatis too small to measure by the Hall effect. This universal electricalbehavior strongly suggests that a common bulk or surface effectdominates transport in FeS₂ thin films. Three possible explanations havebeen outlined herein for this universal behavior, i.e., a common dopant,nanoscale phase impurities, or a hole accumulation/inversion layer.

While the invention is susceptible to various modifications, andalternative forms, specific examples thereof have been shown in thedrawings and are herein described in detail. It should be understood,however, that the invention is not to be limited to the particular formsor methods disclosed, but to the contrary, the invention is to cover allmodifications, equivalents and alternatives falling within the spiritand scope of the appended claims.

Iron pyrite thin films from molecular inks have been disclosed. It isunderstood that the embodiments described herein are for the purpose ofelucidation and should not be considered limiting the subject matter ofthe disclosure. Various modifications, uses, substitutions,combinations, improvements, methods of productions without departingfrom the scope or spirit of the present invention would be evident to aperson skilled in the art.

What is claimed is:
 1. A method for producing pyrite thin films,comprising the steps of creating a solution of molecular speciescomprising iron-bearing and sulfur-bearing molecules; depositing a thinfilm of the solution onto a substrate; and annealing the thin film toconvert the molecular species to crystalline iron pyrite, wherein thestep of annealing is conducted in an environment containing a sulfurbased gas; wherein the step of creating a solution comprises addingsulfur and iron powders in a predetermined ratio to ethanolamine anddimethyl sulfoxide (DMSO), and stirring the sulfur, iron powders, andDMSO as a solution for a time period at a specified temperature.
 2. Themethod of claim 1, wherein the predetermined ratio is one partethanolamine in 6.5 parts dimethyl sulfoxide (DMSO).
 3. The method ofclaim 1, wherein the time period is 24 hours and the specifictemperature is room temperature.
 4. The method of claim 1 wherein thestep of deposition a thin film includes one of roll-to-roll coating,spraying, and spin coating.
 5. The method of claim 4 wherein the step ofspin coating comprises using spin conditions that yield a thin filmhaving an ˜150 nm thick layer.
 6. The method of claim 1 wherein thesulfur based gas is one of S₂ and H₂S.
 7. The method of claim 1 furthercomprising step of heating the thin film.
 8. The method of claim 7further comprising step of cooling the thin film.
 9. The method of claim8 wherein the thin film has a plurality of layers spin coated to achievea desired film thickness
 10. A method for producing pyrite thin films,comprising the steps of creating a solution of molecular speciescomprising iron-bearing and sulfur-bearing molecules; depositing a thinfilm of the solution onto a substrate; pre-baking the thin film; andannealing the thin film in a sulfur atmosphere to convert the molecularspecies into a pure crystalline iron pyrite film.
 11. The method ofclaim 10, wherein the step of creating a solution comprises addingsulfur and iron (III) acetylacetonate in a predetermined ratio ofpyridine to form the solution.
 12. The method of claim 10 furthercomprising the step of spin coating the solution onto various substratesto make individual solid layers.
 13. The method of claim 12 wherein theindividual solid layers are ˜200 nm thick.
 14. The method of claim 10wherein the step of deposition a thin film includes one of roll-to-rollcoating, spraying, and spin coating.
 15. The method of claim 10 whereinthe step of annealing includes annealing the thin film at temperaturesin a range of 200-600° C. for a plurality of hours to convert themolecular species to crystalline iron pyrite.
 16. The method of claim 10wherein the sulfur based gas is one of S₂ and H₂S.
 17. The method ofclaim 14 wherein the step of spin coating comprises using spinconditions that yield a thin film having an ˜150 nm thick layer.
 18. Themethod of claim 17 further comprising step of heating the thin film. 19.The method of claim 18 further comprising step of cooling the thin film.20. The method of claim 19 wherein the thin film has a plurality oflayers spin coated to achieve a desired film thickness.